When we bomb Syria

I agree with almost everything you've said there....the only thing is that it 'isn't based on some dodgy intelligence'...I have a deep worry that it may be dodgy intelligence..The Guardian reported 'William Hague, the foreign secretary, said this week that the attack was probably carried out by forces loyal to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.'...probably Mr Hague,I think we need a little more than that.
I find it difficult to imagine what advantage Assad would gain by their use,in a suburb of a city his forces have under major control.Why,when he has tacit Russian and Chinese support would he endanger that,or exascerbate the situation in UN terms by upping the ante,why rock the boat when at the moment he appears to be in a pretty good position.
Independent observers have for a while suggested both sides have used them....there are a lot of questions that need to be answered...when the UN vehicles were shot at it was immediately reported that the blame lay with Assad's snipers...how can they possibly suggest that with no apparent evidence,perhaps I'm a little cynical after Blair/Bush's WMD's,but nothing I have seen yet is clear cut enough to warrant our forces bombing Syria,particularly when regime change, judging by the experience of Iraq may just result in one nasty b*****d being replaced by competing factions of nasty b******s...I noticed another 40 odd people killed and 300 injured in Iraq again yesterday,ordinary people just like us suffering,that falls at the door of Blair/Bush..I have deep concerns that Cameron may end up with an equally horrendous legacy..whatever is decided I can see very little good emerging for the poor ordinary Syrian.

 

Cannot afford to go in, will be long range strikes from ships if owt happens or arming the rebels. Syrias air defence is first rate and would result in heavy western aircraft/aircrew losses

 

That's questionable to be honest, they have apparently acquired some modern Russian tech but reports are that this isn't widely in operation, if at all. Other than that they have some 30 year old scuds which won't be that much of a worry.

 

Agreed. I wouldn't back a military strike either.

1. I don't believe our national interests are threatened by the present situation.

2. I can't see the difference between killing people with chemicals or bullets and bombs, and it's not our role to rule on that moral distinction in any case.

3. Whenever we go poking our noses into other countries problems, it usually makes matters worse, not better.

4. Why protect the Syrian rebels, most of whom despise the UK and USA anyway?

5.we might find Assad repugnant, but to be honest it's only dictators that can run these "countries" in the Middle East. They are a bunch of rival factions, religious extremists of differing types, local tribes, and Al Qaeda terrorists that only strong and violent dictators have a chance of controlling (as Mubarak did in Egypt for many years). It seems to be that or a constant state of civil war. Leave it to them to decide what they want and fight their own wars.

6. We've got enough problems in this country that should be given priority over this issue.

 

With a slight tweak to point 2 this has pretty much summed up exactly how I feel about the matter.

 

Couldn't agree more. We're the ****ing loons on this planet

 

So they are going to bomb Syria to stop them using chemical weapons. How's that going to work then? Do they know where the weapons are? Or is it just a case of "BOOOOM!" Do it again and we'll bomb you again?

Ironically they dont really want Assad out, because those groups running around playing silly buggers (and who might well be responsible for the chemical weapons in the first place) are dangerous freaks.

 

I blame Thatcher

ever since she got loads of praise and bigged up over the Falklands seems like every prime minister whose personal stock has dropped wants to show how hard they are.
If its a UN thing and everybody chipping in that's different but Cameron seems to want to right the worlds wrongs either on his own or when the Yanks whistle

 

Re: I blame Thatcher

not all bad news if you have shares in the makers of missiles:

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/RTN:US/chart

 

If you are going to bomb Damascus you need to know where it is first!
http://toys.usvsth3m.com/damascus/

I was 70 miles off.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-is-even-though-we-might-bomb-it-8789312.html

 

I've just bomber ******* Libya ! 1456 miles off... ah well Libya/Syria sound the same, never mind I'm sure well find another reason to bomb Libya.

 

That isn't easy, I was 100 miles off.

 

Inside Syria - but still a country mile away.

I was being ultra cautious about hitting lebannon.. but not so cautious about accidentally hitting Iraq.

 

Just bombed Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps if we'd done that originally...

 

Perhaps if we'd have bombed Washington originally - oh wait a minute - the CIA did that to start it all off!

 

But don't they control summat like 20% of the West's economy?

And Man Citeh.

 

I was 1202 miles away in Saudi.
A Moslem lot anyway, so near enough.

 

well your finger was about 4cm off when you typed that 0 and 10cm off when typing the e. Thank goodness your finger isn't on the nuclear button.

 

Plus the already threatened terrorist retaliations.

I'm already depressed enough taking my morning London tube journey to work - the thought of being blown up or gassed will really put the icing on the cake.

 

more worried about my son his wife and 3 grandkids stationed at Akrotiri only about 150 miles from Syria